Top 10 is a completely artificial demarcation. It corresponds to nothing tangible and there is no discernable difference between the #10 and the #12. I could understand top 8 because those are the seeds that are supposed to meet in quarters in every tournament. Top 10 has no significance whatsoever in terms of seeding.

This is mainly due to Fed being the stronger all surface player across his career than Nadal. It took Nadal a while to adapt himself outside of clay (especially to hard courts) where Fed is overall consistent. Plus Fed is older when Nadal and him are both retired the numbers might be closer who knows.

There was already a thread on detailed records against top 10 players for Fedal with stats provided by Mustard.
There were some interesting points like Nadal always faced/beat fewer top 10 players than Fed even when he was no.1 (like in 2010).
One reason Nadal faces fewer top 10 players is that he didn't make it deep to non clay tournaments consistently until a couple of years ago(and tends to somehow get easier draws comparatively).

Top 10 is a completely artificial demarcation. It corresponds to nothing tangible and there is no discernable difference between the #10 and the #12. I could understand top 8 because those are the seeds that are supposed to meet in quarters in every tournament. Top 10 has no significance whatsoever in terms of seeding.

Click to expand...

No different than your artificial demarcation of Tier 1 events being slams, masters, olympics.

Just when you think Nadal couldn't get any better, he takes it to a whole new level in 2012. 11-2 vs top 10 players is a crazy stat. Maybe Nadal is getting better with age. 2013-2016 could be his best years.

The problem with your post is....Talk Tennis has ALWAYS been "sure" yet has a history of never being able to predict what happens each year.

At the end of 2007 it was believed that Federer would continue to dominate. Instead, Nadal won Roland Garros, Wimbledon and Olympic Gold in 2008.

At the end of 2008 it was believed that Nadal would continue to dominate.
Instead, Federer won Roland Garros and Wimbledon in 2009.

At the end of 2009 it was believed that Nadal was headed for retirement.
Instead, Nadal won 3 slams in 2010, becoming the only man ever to win slams on clay, grass and hardcourt in a Calendar Year.

At the end of 2010 it was believed that Nadal would continue to rule the world.
Instead, Djokovic won 3 slams in 2011.

At the end of 2011 it was believed that Djokovic would continue to dominate the slams.
Instead, we had 4 different slam winners, and Djokovic's Australian Open win was the closest slam final of the year.

The problem with your post is....Talk Tennis has ALWAYS been "sure" yet has a history of never being able to predict what happens each year.

At the end of 2007 it was believed that Federer would continue to dominate. Instead, Nadal won Roland Garros, Wimbledon and Olympic Gold in 2008.

At the end of 2008 it was believed that Nadal would continue to dominate.
Instead, Federer won Roland Garros and Wimbledon in 2009.

At the end of 2009 it was believed that Nadal was headed for retirement.
Instead, Nadal won 3 slams in 2010, becoming the only man ever to win slams on clay, grass and hardcourt in a Calendar Year.

At the end of 2010 it was believed that Nadal would continue to rule the world.
Instead, Djokovic won 3 slams in 2011.

At the end of 2011 it was believed that Djokovic would continue to dominate the slams.
Instead, we had 4 different slam winners, and Djokovic's Australian Open win was the closest slam final of the year.

Click to expand...

This is all true. That's why just like the *******s and Rafa haters out there, you should cut the 'Fed is done' 'stick a fork in Roger' BS, as well. We just don't know what will happen next year. Both are extremely talented and both have proved to be able to perform great after disappointments. Wouldn't write off either to win a Slam or more next year, though a really dominant year for Fed is hard to imagine given his age.

I do not think Federer's and Nadal's percentages are comparable. Before 2010 Nadal used to avoid top 10 players in the second half of each year while Federer played through the entire season and reached late stages of tournaments on all surfaces.

Example: in 2012, Nadal only played on slow HC and clay, and therefore had more opportunities for a good record against top 10.

And who said anything about Nadal being GOAT, the OP was comparing their stats about the top 10.

I have to give out an obvious TROLLOLOL to you since you compare Nadal's clay prowess to Muster/Bruguera. So you're saying that, in the 90's, not only would Nadal get murdered on any non-clay court but even on clay he couldn't reach a better status than a Muster(1 RG) or Bruguera(2 RG).

I don't remember who said it first but he/she was right, we are indeed living in a weak trolling era.

Nothing artificial about that. Events where the top players participate: masters and slams. And events that give the most points as well. Olympics is just a matter of prestige.

Click to expand...

And there isn't anything artificial about the top 10... players outside of it refer to their desire to get into it, the first page of the ATP website has the top 10 players listed, media (both specifically tennis and general sports) refer to the top 10 players all the time, certainly moreso than "top 8" or any other cut off/criteria for the current best players in the sport.

As if I'm debating Sampras's one-dimensional game, he wasnt as complete as some ppl make him out to be. He's like the other end of the spectrum(the fast one). So ofcourse Sampras would win diddly squat in this era,apart from a couple of Wimbys and USOs.

I have to give out an obvious TROLLOLOL to you since you compare Nadal's clay prowess to Muster/Bruguera. So you're saying that, in the 90's, not only would Nadal get murdered on any non-clay court but even on clay he couldn't reach a better status than a Muster(1 RG) or Bruguera(2 RG).

Click to expand...

Nope, thats not what I meant. Ralph would be one of the best clay courters in the 90s too, I just dont see him doing well off clay in the 90s at all tbh(Ok Ill throw in an AO for you but that's being generous with Agassi around). I don't know why this is so hard for you to digest?
As far as clay itself goes, let's face it, Ralph never played anyone of the caliber of Guga/Borg. The closest he came to playing a hardcore claycourter was Coria who almost beat him in that Rome final. His best competition was Federer who basically was easy pickings for Ralph on clay with his lefty lasso FH. As great a player Fed is overall, he aint no Kuerten.

In short, as good a volleyer Fed is, he ain't no Edberg/Mcenroe. See, I can face facts ,why cant you?

As far as clay itself goes, let's face it, Ralph never played anyone of the caliber of Guga/Borg. The closest he came to playing a hardcore claycourter was Coria who almost beat him in that Rome final.

Click to expand...

Why the hell do people keep bringing up this myth of the "hardcore claycourter" that is Coria in respect to Nadal?

Nadal was 16 when he first met Coria(lost in 2) and Coria, by that time, had made quite a lot of clay finals and the next year, he would become RG finalist.

When they had their two enormous clashes in the spring of 2005, Nadal was 18 and Coria was an established claycourter(with something like 13 clay finals ,including a couple of clay MS finals and 8 clay titles to his name) and had made RG final the year before. In contrast, Nadal had exactly 3 clay titles and 3 clay finals, all in 250 events(Sopot,Acapulco,Costa do Suipe).

So your reasoning is backwards, it wasn't Coria that was pushing Nadal, it was Nadal who was pushing Coria since, on paper, Coria was the major favorite for those clashes in MC and Rome 2005.

As for their future clashes, one can only speculate, but does it look good when a RG finalist is taken out twice at MS level by a 18 year old? I think not. Not to mention that, as much as I like Coria, his clay prowess overall is quite overrated. Coria, in 2004-2005(some of his best years), lost on clay(his best surface) to people such as:

-Gaudio(at a time when Gaston was ranked 44th) and this is with Coria leading 2 sets to nil in RG final.
-Federer twice(THAT Federer, who sucks on clay and bla bla bla).
-Florian Mayer(95th player in the world back then).
-Davydenko.
-Calleri(99th player of the world).

If we wanna go further, in 2006, then he starts losing on clay to people like Sabau(165), Vik(74), Djokovic twice(once when Novak was ranked 71 and another time when he was ranked 36), Acasuso(32), Ramirez Hidalgo twice(93), Gremelmayer(132), Almagro(57), Di Mauro(113).

When he meets Nadal again in 2006 in MC the score is 6-2,6-1 for Nadal.

I don't know if Nadal broke him in 2005, but after 2005 was a mess. But even so, Coria, in his prime, on his best surface, got beat up twice by guys that barely made the first 100 in the world, a young Federer twice(whose worst surface was always clay), Davydenko and choked away a slam final.

And this is the guy that was supposed to challenge Nadal as Rafa started to grow as a claycourter(which he did after 2005)? Come on. I know some of you try to disparage Nadal's clay record at every turn but what you don't seem to get is that Nadal was a phenomenon. Nadal was beating RG champions when he was 16, RG finalist when he was 18, he won RG on his first try. He would be outstanding in any clay era you put him in.

Nadal was 16 when he first met Coria(lost in 2) and Coria, by that time, had made quite a lot of clay finals and the next year, he would become RG finalist.

When they had their two enormous clashes in the spring of 2005, Nadal was 18 and Coria was an established claycourter(with something like 13 clay finals ,including a couple of clay MS finals and 8 clay titles to his name) and had made RG final the year before. In contrast, Nadal had exactly 3 clay titles and 3 clay finals, all in 250 events(Sopot,Acapulco,Costa do Suipe).

So your reasoning is backwards, it wasn't Coria that was pushing Nadal, it was Nadal who was pushing Coria since, on paper, Coria was the major favorite for those clashes in MC and Rome 2005.

As for their future clashes, one can only speculate, but does it look good when a RG finalist is taken out twice at MS level by a 18 year old? I think not. Not to mention that, as much as I like Coria, his clay prowess overall is quite overrated. Coria, in 2004-2005(some of his best years), lost on clay(his best surface) to people such as:

-Gaudio(at a time when Gaston was ranked 44th) and this is with Coria leading 2 sets to nil in RG final.
-Federer twice(THAT Federer, who sucks on clay and bla bla bla).
-Florian Mayer(95th player in the world back then).
-Davydenko.
-Calleri(99th player of the world).

If we wanna go further, in 2006, then he starts losing on clay to people like Sabau(165), Vik(74), Djokovic twice(once when Novak was ranked 71 and another time when he was ranked 36), Acasuso(32), Ramirez Hidalgo twice(93), Gremelmayer(132), Almagro(57), Di Mauro(113).

When he meets Nadal again in 2006 in MC the score is 6-2,6-1 for Nadal.

Click to expand...

All this indicates is that Coria wasn't very consistent,but his claycourt prowess is undeniable,you're just trying to downgrade him because he wasn't Ralph's main rival from his RG winning years.
I guess using your logic , Ralph is a bottom-tier grasscourter(on slow grass) losing to so many players over the years in Queens and Rosol this year.
Ralph got super lucky in that Rome final, just like the one against Fed in 06.

Also Federer beat Kuerten in Hamburg(infact he bagelled him) ,doesn't make Fed a better clay courter than Kuerten,not in my book anyway.

I don't know if Nadal broke him in 2005, but after 2005 was a mess. But even so, Coria, in his prime, on his best surface, got beat up twice by guys that barely made the first 100 in the world, a young Federer twice(whose worst surface was always clay), Davydenko and choked away a slam final.

Click to expand...

Coria was a broken man after the RG 05 final but ok I guess everyone's broken after a loss to Ralph,whatever makes you happy. :lol:

And this is the guy that was supposed to challenge Nadal as Rafa started to grow as a claycourter(which he did after 2005)? Come on. I know some of you try to disparage Nadal's clay record at every turn but what you don't seem to get is that Nadal was a phenomenon. Nadal was beating RG champions when he was 16, RG finalist when he was 18, he won RG on his first try.

Click to expand...

Age is of little relevance, noone could handle Ralph's moonballing,it's as simple as that, whether he moonballs at 16/35,doesn't matter. There's a reason he can play like crap on clay and still win relatively comfortably because he has the luxury of moonballing to weaker BHs all day,don't deny it.

Only Djokovic 2.0 could standup to that onslaught and dismissed Ralph from his presence in 2011. I say Djoker 2.0 because his BH was at an insane level,nothing seemed to go past it. When Djoker's level dropped in 2012,Ralph capitalised.

He would've been a great claycourter in a different era but wouldn't have the same success he's having now like 8 MCs in a row, one match lost in RG since 05', 81 surface streak etc. Looks it's just my opinion, don't know why you're still so insecure about Ralph's claycourt prowess after all the success he's had.

All this indicates is that Coria wasn't very consistent,but his claycourt prowess is undeniable,you're just trying to downgrade him because he wasn't Ralph's main rival from his RG winning years.

Click to expand...

Gee, that was kinda my point. He had clay skills but he was inconsistent yet you and a couple others here herald him as a future beater of Nadal when Guillermo, in his prime, lost to a 18 year old Nadal. Even before the rise of Nadal in 2005, he lost in RG, not to nobodies, but he lost.
Now tell me the last time Nadal lost on clay(and lest we forget, in his prime) to someone ranked 99.

I guess using your logic , Ralph is a bottom-tier grasscourter(on slow grass) losing to so many players over the years in Queens and Rosol this year.

Click to expand...

Wow, is this supposed to be your argument? Queens? Nadal and almost everybody that plays this event gets 2-3 matches under their feet before going to WB. Few have Queens as an objective. Anyway, Nadal is clearly a second rate grasscourter with only 5 WB finals to his name.

Also Federer beat Kuerten in Hamburg(infact he bagelled him) ,doesn't make Fed a better clay courter than Kuerten,not in my book anyway.

Click to expand...

I loved watching Kuerten play but I would give them a neck a neck status, for RG at least. Yes, Kuerten had 3 titles and Fed 1 but Kuerten beat good/great claycourters whereas Federer was consistently stopped 4 times by a legend of this surface and he made 5 FINALS in RG.

Age is of little relevance, noone could handle Ralph's moonballing,it's as simple as that, whether he moonballs at 16/35,doesn't matter. There's a reason he can play like crap on clay and still win relatively comfortably because he has the luxury of moonballing to weaker BHs all day,don't deny it.

Click to expand...

So I take it that almost everybody in the 2005-2012 period bar Djokovic 2.0 had weak BH's? Weak era indeed. And yeah, Nadal can clearly play at 26 just like at 19, no problem for him. Actually, the reason he can still be competent on this surface after so many years is because:

-the surface is mostly slow so he has time to retrieve and more importantly, set up his shots.
-it's softer on his body.
-his forehand kicks like crazy on clay.

Only Djokovic 2.0 could standup to that onslaught and dismissed Ralph from his presence in 2011. I say Djoker 2.0 because his BH was at an insane level,nothing seemed to go past it. When Djoker's level dropped in 2012,Ralph capitalised.

Click to expand...

You are saying that it took one of the guys who had one of the best seasons in the Open era(top 5 probably, if not better) probably to shake Nadal on his best surface and he had to make sure everything needed to be into place to do it. Thanks for the compliment, I guess.

And if we reduce it to GREAT BH = BEAT NADAL, even on clay, then why haven't Murray/Nalbandian/any other great BH beat Nadal on clay? The only guy to beat Nadal(and a injured Nadal at that) in RG had a massive FOREHAND for a weapon and merely a serviceable BH. The other guy that was close to a surprise in RG, Isner, almost beat him with pace and serve.

Do you believe, for example, that Agassi(RG winner lest we forget and a terrific BH to boot), would beat Nadal in RG?

Looks it's just my opinion, don't know why you're still so insecure about Ralph's claycourt prowess after all the success he's had.

Click to expand...

I'm not insecure, I'm merely arguing your points, which in my opinion aren't very strong to say the least. You are saying that a talented but inconsistent claycourter, Coria(who wasn't even the best claycourter of those times), would become a rival/thorn in the side of the guy who is probably among the top 2 claycourters of the open era, if not ever. It sounds kinda silly to be honest.

As I said, Coria was good but if a prime Coria is having trouble(twice) at MS level with a 18 year old kid(this was Nadal before even entering RG for the first time) and losing to guys barely in the top 100 on his best surface, I'm not betting the house on him being a worthy rival for Nadal after 2005.